|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Klansman |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
578 | 65.76% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
185 | 21.05% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
0 | 0% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.11% |
| Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| KKKillary KKKlinton |
|
16 | 1.82% |
| Some other idiot not in this list |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Total: | 879 votes | ||
|
goethe.cx posted:Warren's really shooting herself in the foot with her wishy-washiness on health care. If she laid out a specific medicare-for-all plan she'd be able to peel off a bunch of Bernie's support twodot fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 3, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
twodot posted:Warren painted herself into a corner here. If she backs a specific non-Sanders plan she has to explain both A) Why she cosponsored Sanders' plan in the first place, and B) Why her plan is different, which is either going to involve lies or technical details no one really cares about. Additionally, running as "Sanders, but a slightly younger 7 decade old person" is going to upset all kinds of people, including in the donor class and people who are trying to not vote for Sanders. I think being wishy-washy here is her best strategic choice, though obviously "Having a consistent set of ethics you champion in public" would have been a better choice. Using the term “access” was a stupid mistake. Everyone knows what it’s code for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Using the term “access” was a stupid mistake. Everyone knows what it’s code for. everyone? I don't think so. That's the entire point of saying 'access' in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Using the term “access” was a stupid mistake. Everyone knows what it’s code for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Warren's really shooting herself in the foot with her wishy-washiness on health care. If she laid out a specific medicare-for-all plan she'd be able to peel off a bunch of Bernie's support I really wish people would stop using this sort of language ("a specific medicare-for-all plan"), though I don't blame them for getting the wrong impression that "medicare for all" is a slogan instead of a reference specifically to Bernie's bill. The strategy to conflate the term "medicare for all" with things other than Bernie's bill has sadly been pretty successful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
"preferred" has jumped way up there with "access" for words that trigger instinctual revulsion in me
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
Sanders has openly cursed middle-ground thinking on healthcare. There is no compromise, the medical industry barons must be annihilated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Warren painted herself into a corner here. If she backs a specific non-Sanders plan she has to explain both A) Why she cosponsored Sanders' plan in the first place, and B) Why her plan is different, which is either going to involve lies or technical details no one really cares about. Additionally, running as "Sanders, but a slightly younger 7 decade old person" is going to upset all kinds of people, including in the donor class and people who are trying to not vote for Sanders. I think being wishy-washy here is her best strategic choice, though obviously "Having a consistent set of ethics you champion in public" would have been a better choice. why do you think she's running, is it because she's a power hungry or because she wants to 'centrist-lize" the progressive movement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:why do you think she's running, is it because she's a power hungry or because she wants to 'centrist-lize" the progressive movement? edit: Is she merely power hungry? Is she actively malicious and attempting to coopt the progressive movement? Why was she a literal Republican well into her 40s? I don't know these answers. If you know the answers you should share them. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Sanders has openly cursed middle-ground thinking on healthcare. There is no compromise, the medical industry barons must be annihilated. https://i.imgur.com/72HUTEg.gifv
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Sanders has openly cursed middle-ground thinking on healthcare. There is no compromise, the medical industry barons must be annihilated. Can somebody please explain what middle ground thinking is when it comes to healthcare?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
a.lo posted:Can somebody please explain what middle ground thinking is when it comes to healthcare?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/citizensmediatv/status/1168513713466433536?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
a.lo posted:Can somebody please explain what middle ground thinking is when it comes to healthcare? Give a public option, think that the insurance companies won't gently caress you up over it, think that GOP majorities are not going to litigate, defund and make your option as painful as possible to then get to say "you see, it doesn't work!".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
a.lo posted:Can somebody please explain what middle ground thinking is when it comes to healthcare? Currently the ACA with a public option is considered the middle ground. But to see the danger in that, think of another service that has a public option, education. If the GOP ever get any majority anywhere in government, they'll do to it what they've done to public schools. They'll defund it, criticize it, and neuter it to make private plans look like the sensible option. Then, after everything they've done, they'll point to the public option as a grand failure and an example of what happens when big government gets involved. "It screws up everything it touches! Only private enterprise can provide the efficiencies that government can't do!" They will say it without a hint of irony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I really wish people would stop using this sort of language ("a specific medicare-for-all plan"), though I don't blame them for getting the wrong impression that "medicare for all" is a slogan instead of a reference specifically to Bernie's bill. The strategy to conflate the term "medicare for all" with things other than Bernie's bill has sadly been pretty successful. I was using imprecise language but what I meant was “a single payer healthcare plan that eliminates private insurance like she said during the debates.” I haven’t seen Medicare for all conflated with anything else, candidates who want to keep private insurance all call it something else
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:I was using imprecise language but what I meant was “a single payer healthcare plan that eliminates private insurance like she said during the debates.” I haven’t seen Medicare for all conflated with anything else, candidates who want to keep private insurance all call it something else Other candidates (including Warren, actually) have used language treating MfA as some sort of synonym for "universal healthcare," which basically muddies the waters such that you can define things that aren't actually single-payer systems as "Medicare for All" (plus takes "ownership" of the term away from Sanders and his bill).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
a.lo posted:Can somebody please explain what middle ground thinking is when it comes to healthcare? To my mind it's a solution that allows the insurance companies to keep on existing and being the main way in which health care is funded, allowing them to keep on leeching money from health care. Thus keeping the american system as number one in the world (for inefficiency).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
gently caress insurance companies. They are leeches on the American people, thriving on the fear of pain and death. Hang every executive from a loving lamppost so that no one tries to monetize suffering ever again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1168849897447219200 And they said Clinton was acting as if she deserved it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1168849897447219200 Yet another one for the "Who Said It - Trump or Biden" game. Man I can't wait for him to gently caress off forever
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
I’m actually a Biden voter and supporter but on Election Day I might fill in the circle next to Bernie Sanders. But ya know details aren’t really important when it comes to decision making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I’m actually a Biden voter and supporter but on Election Day I might fill in the circle next to Bernie Sanders. But ya know details aren’t really important when it comes to decision making. Joe Biden is the Hello Games of politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Access. M4A is a "healthcare access" policy. poo poo, maybe I'm not paying the kind of attention to this that some folks ITT are, but I don't see M4A as a healthcare system "improvement", I see it as the key for which everyone gets to utilize the system we've got, and scrapping private insurance as a necessary thing. Why wouldn't that be "access to healthcare?" What am I missing? Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:gently caress insurance companies. They are leeches on the American people, thriving on the fear of pain and death. Hang every executive from a loving lamppost so that no one tries to monetize suffering ever again. The best way to deal with vampires is a stake through the heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Beto realizing six months too late that it's better to be an authentic human being instead of a focus-grouped homunculus riding a skateboard and surfing countertops to appeal to the kids. kidkissinger posted:Honestly I get the feeling his current material was also focus grouped lol you were right. Never give any Dem the benefit of the doubt. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1168586655546183681?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:M4A is a "healthcare access" policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7nchytFSQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:lol you were right. Never give any Dem the benefit of the doubt. Yikes
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Do people really think that Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz are speaking the same language on healthcare?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Do people really think that Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz are speaking the same language on healthcare? I think that if your vision of the future of healthcare in America isn't single-payer healthcare, the differences are so minor that they don't matter. So to answer your question, yes. Until proven otherwise (since Elizabeth Warren has no healthcare plan she is advocating for), she is trying to perpetuate the current system just like Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:M4A is a "healthcare access" policy. "Access" is an ambiguous term that can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. I have "access" to a Porsche, there are Porsche dealers in my city, I could go test drive a Porsche, I could rent a Porsche, with sufficiently long term financing I could own a Porsche (with a 30-year mortgage on it lol). Everyone in my town has "access" to a Porsche but they aren't all gonna actually get one in reality. I also have "access" to the public school system, I can send my kid there anytime, for free, and so can everyone else, and they all do it unless they affirmatively decide to refuse or make other arrangements. So if a politician says they support everyone having "access" to healthcare for is that "access" like primary schools or "access" like public universities or "access" like Porsches?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Access" is an ambiguous term that can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Yeah. The question with "access to healthcare" language is that giving someone "access to" [x], rather than simply giving them [X], implies that there is some additional requirement they have to fulfill first. E.g., if I live in an apartment complex, I might have "access to" the shared pool. But maybe only during specific hours, or maybe I have to pay a fee, or maybe I have to reserve it first, etc. If my apartment has its own pool, I can just use my pool. If one person says they're giving me paid free healthcare, and the other person says they're giving me "access to healthcare," the words "paid" and "free" are missing. Maybe they just forgot them but maybe they didn't. In a nation where people are rationing insulin that poo poo matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
Also, the term is almost always used as "access to affordable healthcare" which is another completely meaningless term. What is affordable? Obamacare tries to create this illusion of "affordable healthcare" by giving you subsidies to lower the monthly premium for private health insurance. So in that sense, my health insurance (which I purchase from the exchange) is relatively affordable from a monthly premium perspective. After all, it is under $300/mo for a family of 3! How affordable! What isn't affordable is anything beyond routine check-ups. With a $7,200 deductible per person and a $14,400 deductible per family, all of a sudden a broken bone, a child birth, or hell a hearing test for my kid is essentially not covered by my affordable insurance. Burn the whole system to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:E.g., if I live in an apartment complex, I might have "access to" the shared pool. But maybe only during specific hours, or maybe I have to pay a fee, or maybe I have to reserve it first, etc. If my apartment has its own pool, I can just use my pool. Way to speak the language of proletariat there Mrs Warren 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Do people really think that Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz are speaking the same language on healthcare? linked it for bernie's opening line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Way to speak the language of proletariat there Mrs Warren I thought it was obvious that I was supporting free pools for all! (also don't actually get a pool, they kill thousands of children every year, home pools are deathtraps) Mahoning posted:Also, the term is almost always used as "access to affordable healthcare" which is another completely meaningless term. What is affordable? Obamacare tries to create this illusion of "affordable healthcare" by giving you subsidies to lower the monthly premium for private health insurance. So in that sense, my health insurance (which I purchase from the exchange) is relatively affordable from a monthly premium perspective. After all, it is under $300/mo for a family of 3! How affordable! What isn't affordable is anything beyond routine check-ups. With a $7,200 deductible per person and a $14,400 deductible per family, all of a sudden a broken bone, a child birth, or hell a hearing test for my kid is essentially not covered by my affordable insurance. Yup. "Affordable", in the healthcare context, is synonymous with "pay or die."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I thought it was obvious that I was supporting free pools for all! (also don't actually get a pool, they kill thousands of children every year, home pools are deathtraps) What about the right to bear pools in self defense in case the prince of England shows up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:What about the right to bear pools in self defense in case the prince of England shows up? If Prince Andrew shows up in your neighborhood, please call your local child protective services agency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:What about the right to bear pools in self defense in case the prince of England shows up? Pools full of bears are a rad idea in general to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:lol you were right. Never give any Dem the benefit of the doubt. 100% of the proceeds to Moms Demand Action and March for Our Lives. Clearly he's a literal monster for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:02
|
|
